Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
you big girl you'll end up having a heart attack. "They spend too much" 
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 95
|
By:
its a fact.. so **** off
|
|
By:
No it s not. Mr Excuses will take his spending to 40 million when he signs the spanish lad. Will Wigan,Norwich,Swansea Aston Villa etc managers moan if Arsenal beat them? No they wont. Just get on with it dont be such a chump
|
|
By:
but its our money you lamp!!! from our club... made by US!!!!!!! not some little rich guy who has a better addition of football manager..
take note, city, chelsea.. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/andy-mitten/malaga-lurching-boom-bust-152742713.html |
|
By:
Chelsea made 50 million alone from teh Champions league last year YOU LAMP
|
|
By:
well thats paid for 30% of your wages... wheres the rest coming from? you lose £70 million per year... very sustainable...
|
|
By:
LOL give it up. You had your turn now get off and push
|
|
By:
sj, it's not merely a question of 'our turn to be a big club' etc., there's a wider picture to consider, ie that of the crisis in the whole European economic system, which is bound to affect the 'little world' of football, even if clubs and fans choose to bury their heads in the sand and imagine themselves in some fantasy world, immune from the effects of the big, bad outside world.
But it seems many football fans are so consumed by emotion,ie their precious fantasies, that they can't or won't grasp this reality. Thankfully, there are some influential football people, like Wenger (who, btw, has a degree in economics)that have enough sense to grasp wider issues and point to the dangers facing the game, which could mean its virtual self-destruction through greed. Wenger takes swipe at rivals Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger says "football suffers" when teams like Man City and Chelsea keep spending big transfer fees. The Gunners have been linked with a £16million move for Malaga's Santi Cazorla despite the club claiming they will not sell for less than £20million. Such a deal would take Wenger's summer spending to £39million after the arrivals of Olivier Giroud and Lukas Podolski. But despite his recent activity, Wenger insists the club are still not operating on the same level as the Premier League and Champions League winners, Man City and Chelsea, who are bankrolled by incredibly wealthy individuals. City have been quiet in the transfer market this summer by their standards but are trying to lure Robin van Persie away from the Gunners and have spent big since the arrival of owner Sheikh Mansour in 2008. Chelsea, however, have already splashed out a reported £32million on Eden Hazard and £25million on teenager Oscar in the last few weeks. And they have been joined in the high-spending stakes by Paris St Germain, backed by new Qatari owners, who have just spent around £50million on Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva to add to their other new faces. Wenger, a long-time advocate of financial fair play, fears the worst if it continues. "We consider ourselves in a privileged position because we have a massive income," Wenger told The Sun. "But overall we are not mega-rich because we do not have unlimited resources. "A club can buy players like PSG has done or Manchester City or Chelsea, with unlimited resources, but overall football suffers. "Look at the activity on the transfer market since the start of the summer. PSG are ambitious and they have resources and that's it. We talk always about the same things. "Europe at the moment is like the Titanic but we live in football like nothing matters. "More than ever we have to run our club in a strict way because it looks like everybody suffers in Europe. I would be surprised if football is not touched by it at some stage. "If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible. We have to be ambitious but also make sure we are not getting in trouble financially. "It is difficult for us because the wages in some other clubs are very high. But of course our players quite rightly compare themselves to the players of the other clubs." |
|
By:
Yeah, I mean as I've already said it will be alright for Arsene to spend 40 million plus this summer. But anyone outside the top 5 clubs isnt able to do that. Is that fair on the rest of the league? Chelsea generate plenty of cash dont worry about that.
As said before it was fine when Arsenal were making Ball the highest paid player in Britain and Chelsea couldnt sign a player. Who are you or Arsene to stop a owner spending what he like's on his team to make them better? Still now that you've got your 60,000 stadium we've got to only spend what you earn eh  United and yourself's miles ahead in terms of stadia plus the Champions league very year, oh yes it s defienately a level palying field for the rest isnt it |
|
By:
you talk complete cobblers... my 7 year old knows more than you...
|
|
By:
poor Arsene, I will send him a tissue
|
|
By:
Your 7 yr old will want a Chelsea shirt soon, what name and number will you get him?
|
|
By:
fat frank no 8
|
|
By:
"If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible"
How much did Arsenal borrow for the new stadium please? |
|
By:
£260million
|
|
By:
which is ring fenced by the way..
|
|
By:
Borrowing money to increase income for future sustainability and competitiveness makes a lot more sense then splashing millions on a few players for immediate response, no?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
it is, because its our bloody money!! its payed for by us from our future sponsorship & tv money, we just asked the bank if we could borrow it in advance.. the money is ours OURS!!!!!!
if i go to the bank and ask for 100k to buy a car, and ill pay it back with my money from the next 2 years.. this is my money that im asking for in advance.. you borrowing 100k from your mum and have no income to repay that is completely different. if you think its not your stupid... |
|
By:
oh I see. So because Arsenal had an existing income they should be allowed to borrow against it and invest huge amounts but any club that didn't have this income shouldn't even though they have an owner willing to invest the money in the club? Is that what is meant by Financial Fair play?
|
|
By:
anyways forrest... im off...your boring
|
|
By:
ok, good luck this season. Hope Arsenal do well despite their limited resources (£40 mill in the transfer window to date
) |
|
By:
Arsene of course won't be encouraging these huge transfer amounts because overall football suffers in his opinion.....
how much do you want for RVP again? |
|
By:
themover
02 Aug 12 11:34 Joined: 25 Apr 03 | Topic/replies: 8,068 | Blogger: themover's blog "If you look at debt in football across Europe at the moment it is quite massive and we have to be responsible" How much did Arsenal borrow for the new stadium please? And thats the game. Kingmax think you wanna go away and read up how your club bribed it s way into the top division. OH WAIT thats alright cos Arsenal done it |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Of course he doesn't, still bangs the same old drum. Keeps referring back to the old days, if in 90 years Chelsea are winning stuff of their own back i'd like to think no-one would be banging on about this bought success they'd had in recent years even if it marked an upturn in their history
|
|
By:
sj doesn't get the difference between long term spending for sustainability over splashing on a few players Chelsea style, embarrassing to say the least.
+1 A world of difference. |
|
By:
No proof anyone was ever bribed, but lets compare a promotion to the top division to a bloke pumping billion into a club to buy success
 |
|
By:
a club having money put into by an owner. Whatever next..man landing on moon?
|
|
By:
all clubs at the top of the premiership are rich
they would not be there otherwise personally I think Arsene should spend more money especially on good defenders without owners putting their hand in their pocket the premiership would be between Man U and Arsenal...every year even more boring than it is now I preferred it when money was not the be and end all but that is the way it is now now and as A Chelsea fan we have not done too bad out of it |
|
By:
sj:
Kingmax think you wanna go away and read up how your club bribed it s way into the top division. OH WAIT thats alright cos Arsenal done it sj, holding on so tenaciously to long-passed grievances, utterly irrelevant to now, is a characteristic of prejudice-based disputes, feuds, conflicts, persecution, ultimately even wars, for territory, resources, even genocide. In other words, coming from a mind-set that generates total and utter stupidity, all manner of hell. You must be desperate if you insist on dragging up that rubbish. But the real point is whether you can see how foolish it is, sj.... |
|
By:
Woolwich Arsenal - history
Note the club is from Woolwich - There is no place called Arsenal. Were orignally from Woolwich South London ,but could not compete with Charlton Athletic with fanbase. Were owned by Henry Norris who bribed his way into the league and moved to North London . Were then later bought by the Hill - Woods, rich cotton mill owners who bankrolled the club to success, Arsene really does need to check the History of his club !!!! |
|
By:
i don't think there are any grievances, held long term or otherwise.
what is apparent though is the complete hypocracy of a club like arsenal , who may or may not have bribed their way into the league. who may or may not have been known to have the fattest brown envelopes[boot money i believe it was called] in the forties and fifties and fifties when the maximum wage was in place and they were known as " the bank of england" club. who definately were in the vangaurd of riding a coach and horses through the wage agreements in their pursuit of george eastham. they now apparently want to stop well heeled individuals legally spending their own money to make their own teams better because they say it aint fair on them?????????? you really couldn't make it up. |
|
By:
mike why is it irrelevent now? is it because the shoe is on the other foot and the big boys dont like it?
again i put it to you,back in the days you had the money and we didn't us(mex,sj hunter and alike) would not be drivelling on about net spending and oh its not fair. But i am sure that is irrelevent nowdays,but that would suit your lot |
|
By:
quite right sj.
when arsenal were legally[or maybe even illegally] were paying players more than our team could afford we used to moan about it, and get on with it. whereas this lot want to change the rules now that they can't [or wont] compete. |
|
By:
Does make you laugh when Bergkamp cost more at 7.5mil
than the whole starting Chelsea X1 in the 1996 FA Cup Semi Final with 1.8mil to spare. Did we cry?Did we Bitch? Did we moan? Did we go on about net spend? Did we balls  |
|
By:
Which richman bankrolled the Bergkamp transfer then?
|
|
By:
usual rubbish from ignorant fans about Arsenal's promotion in 1919.
the 1914/15 season was a nonsense and should not have been started (you know, with a war going on) and many players disappearing to enlist. Arsenal were third in 1913/14, the last proper pre-was season, outside the two promotion places, but with the top division expanding in 1919 it was only right that they were offered one of the extra places. if you want to talk about dodgy history, how about a club with no players, no manager and no playing record being granted a place in Division 2 in 1905 after being rejected by the Southern League. who could that be? |
|
By:
and of course Arsenal rebuff the opinions of their 30% billionaire shareholder Alisher Usmanov who says this :
In his open letter to Arsenal's board on Thursday, Usmanov was scathing about the self-financing model, arguing it was, in effect, engineered by the former English shareholders, including Hill-Wood, to make personal fortunes. The owners' policy of not investing their own money in the club, Usmanov argued, meant Arsenal borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium (£260m), charge supporters very expensive ticket prices, yet still leave Wenger short of money to retain and sign star players. "The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits." |
|
By:
for reference
 Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who also inherited her Arsenal shares, made £116m selling them to Kroenke last year. Danny Fiszman, who bought into Arsenal in the 1990s, first with a portion of the former vice-chairman's David Dein's stake, made £160m, the final sale to Kroenke made just before Fiszman died last year. |